TURKEY’S PAST VICTORIES SPAWN TODAY’S DEFEATS
Washington Post
/nikos_konstandaras/2007/10/turkeys_past_victories _spawn_t.html
Oct 15 2007
Athens – It should be the obligation of every individual, every
country and every transnational organization to try to prevent – or,
failing that, to condemn – a crime of such magnitude as the organized
extermination of Turkey’s Armenian population. You are either on the
side of right or you are not. So, on the face of it, this should be
a simple issue for the United States and for every other country.
Reflecting this, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Resolution
106 claims, "Despite the international recognition and affirmation of
the Armenian Genocide, the failure of the domestic and international
authorities to punish those responsible for the Armenian Genocide is
a reason why similar genocides have recurred and may recur in the
future." It concludes that, "a just resolution will help prevent
future genocides." (That remains to be seen: The Holocaust, though
it was officially recognized and its perpetrators were punished, was
followed by genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda and "ethnic cleansing,"
genocide’s little brother, in several other instances.)
The complications in condemning genocide begin when countries begin
to consider their own present interests and when we try to untangle
the web of grievances, victories and defeats that constitute nations’
conflicting histories. And all this is complicated further by the
great length of time that has passed since that dreadful time in the
Middle East, whose aftershocks are still at the center of dramatic,
historical events.
There is no doubt that there was a concerted military effort at the
end of the Ottoman Empire to remove the Armenians from Anatolia.
Whether this was prompted by Armenian collusion with the Russian
enemies of the Turks or the execution of an old wish to rid eastern
Turkey of the Armenians is for historians to decide. What actually
happened – the massacre of an ancient nation and its extermination
from its ancestral homeland – is not up for debate.
The massacres and deportations were not unprecedented, as it was
general practice throughout human conflict for conquerors to remove
unruly subject peoples or defeated neighbors from their homes through
deportation or extermination, or both. An obvious instance is the
removal of the Jews to Babylon. The Armenians were the victims of
massacres as recently as 1894, 1895, 1896 and 1909. So when Russia
attacked the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians were more likely to side
with the invaders than with the Turks. That’s where the Turkish
authorities base their argument that there was no genocide: that
the deaths resulted from the general turmoil in the Ottoman Empire’s
dying days, and that there were many victims on both sides.
The problem for the Turks is that they were executing a tried and true
method of solving historical problems in an era when, for the first
time, there were enough foreign witnesses and international interests
involved to seize on the slaughter and portray it for what it was in
terms of modern sensibilities: a crime of monumental proportions.
The Turks of the time got away with it, even though the crimes
hardly went undetected, because most of the Western World was already
chin-deep in blood shed in the Great War. Since then, Turkey, always
of great strategic importance, has, through judicious alliances,
sharp business acumen and wily neutrality, managed to keep friends
and enemies by tiptoeing around its past. For the Turks, their
country’s modern history begins with the establishment of a secular,
Westward-looking republic in 1923, after Kemal Ataturk’s forces
defeated an ill-judged Greek military campaign in Asia Minor. The
years before that, during which the Ottoman Empire collapsed, are seen
as a glorious struggle to save the Turks’ honor from the ignominious
defeats that the Empire suffered at the hands of foreign invaders,
and to create a nation out of many disparate parts. This is the
mythic underpinning of the Turks’ identity, which, like all nations,
arises out of a benevolent reading of great victories and unjust
defeats. Demanding that the Turks acknowledge that their forefathers
were the perpetrators of genocide, in effect, demands that they
undermine their very identity. After denying the Armenian genocide
for so long, which government (indeed, which individual?) can accept
accountability for such a crime without putting up stiff resistance?
But this is where the Turks, who have never seemed to accept the fact
that military might is not the automatic answer to every problem,
have met their match. Yesterday’s victory spawned today’s defeat. The
remnants of the crushed Armenia spread out all over the world, reliving
the horror of slaughter and dispossession in their collective memory
without respite. They raised their children to demand recognition
of the horror that removed the Armenians from their ancestral
homeland. The genocide drove them to America, to Canada, to France,
to other great democracies. And as their wealth and influence grew,
so did their political power. They have proved themselves implacable
foes. This, too, is part of the genocide’s legacy: the Armenians
have had nothing to lose and everything to gain from their demand
for historical restitution.
Today Turkey finds itself in a position where its value as an ally is
countered by the political clout of Armenians within its allies. So
time has run out. Turkey will, eventually, have to come to terms with
its history or face the prospect of turning its back on the world that
it set out to join in 1923. The only way that this can be achieved
is if the Armenians and their backers make clear that the matter is
moral and not political – because the issue is to honor the victims of
the past, and not to undermine the common future of Turks, Armenians,
Azeris and all the other nations of this troubled region.
As for Turkey’s allies, including the United States, they need only
consider the simple part of the question: are you on the side of right,
whatever the cost – or are you not?